You can call me naive, but I have always believed that America was dedicated to the spread of liberty and the abolition of Tyranny because we believe in man's inherent right to freedom. If our help is sought, we will give it and risk the lives of our people in order to promote the freedom of others. There have been times when we waited until we were personally impacted before joining the fight, as in WWII, but we have usually jumped in when there was no direct threat or benefit to us. In my mind, this is who we are and what we believe.
If England were invaded again and asked for our assistance to secure their freedom and liberty, would we first do a cost benefit analysis and ask the "what's in it for me" question before going to their aid? I certainly hope not, but in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech Obama stated that America liberates others out of self-interest.
Much of Obama's speech showed an understand of the necessity of a fight that I had previously believed him unaware of - that sometimes the only way to achieve peace is to wage war - and I was with him until he hit this part of the text. "The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity." Say what? So basically we don't really give a crap about their going through but only how it impacts us. Really?
From this point on the speech was about how unjustified the war in Iraq was and why it was so wrong for us to go there. How we shouldn't go to war alone and why the UN (the most ineffectual band of bureaucrats ever assembled) must be utilized and strengthened. From there it goes in to how he really believes he can stop nuclear proliferation with his rhetoric.
A speech that started out strong, ended with the usual apologetic stance.
